Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Superior Court

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 772·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 337·2006 Daily Journal DAR 3059·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2205
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2006G035672California2,547 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting precertification discovery in a class action for the purpose of identifying potential substitute class action plaintiffs. But the court must modify the letter to be sent to the prospective class action plaintiffs to protect their privacy.

FACTS

This is a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse a precertification discovery order in a purported class action. The action claims violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment based on allegations that defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P., petitioner here, charged an illegal “restocking fee” for returned merchandise. Boling, a lawyer and real party in interest, brought the action in propria persona. Relying on Apple Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 818 ], which held that a conflict of interest prohibits a lawyer from serving both as class representative and as counsel for the class, the trial court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.

Boling responded with a “motion compelling precertification discovery to seek class representatives,”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.